False Imprisonment Alleged When Patient Is Detained with Suspicious Rx

Larry M. Simonsmeier, JD, RPh

Published Online: Tuesday, March 1, 2005

Follow Pharmacy_Times:

Issue of the Case:
A Louisiana appellate court was
asked whether a patient had a cause of
action against a pharmacy when she
was detained for the police after presenting
a suspicious prescription that
was later determined to be valid.

Facts of the Case:

Jane Doe, complaining of pain associated
with an abscessed tooth, called
her oral surgeon late on a Saturday
afternoon to obtain a prescription to
relieve the pain. The physician called
the defendant pharmacy and ordered
Darvon Compound 65. After the pharmacist
took the order and filled the
prescription, he decided to verify it.

The pharmacist attempted to reach
the oral surgeon twice with no success.
Finally, he spoke with the physician's
answering service and discovered that
the physician was not on call that
weekend. The pharmacist was connected
to the oral surgeon's partner,
who said it was unlikely that the other
doctor had called in the order. The
partner explained that their office had
a policy that only the on-call doctor
would phone in prescriptions. All of
this increased the pharmacist's suspicions,
so he called the state police drug
investigation unit.

When Jane Doe arrived to pick up
her prescription, she was told it would
take a few minutes and was asked to
wait. Doe waited a short time and
checked again. She was again told it
would take a few more minutes. While
waiting, Doe roamed freely around the
store. She did some shopping. The
pharmacist, or any store employee,
did not attempt to physically detain
her. Nor was she told that she could
not leave the store.

When the police arrived, the pharmacist
identified Doe and explained
to them why he was suspicious of her
activities. The pharmacist had no further
contact with the plaintiff. The
police conducted a brief investigation
and placed Doe under arrest, handcuffed
her, and transported her to jail,
where she was booked. Later that
evening, a sheriff's deputy contacted
the prescriber, who verified the prescription.
Doe was then released.
Doe sued the pharmacist, the pharmacy,
the police officers, and the state
of Louisiana.

The Court's Ruling:

Following a nonjury trial, the defendants
were found responsible for
$40,000 in damages, but the verdict
was reduced to $20,000 because the
parties had agreed before trial to limit
damages to that amount. The pharmacist
and pharmacy were assessed 75%
of the fault, and the police and the
state were found responsible for 25%.
Upon appeal, the verdict was overturned,
and judgment was rendered in
favor of the pharmacy and the pharmacist.

The Court's Reasoning:

The trial court judge was not explicit
in his ruling but suggested that he
based his decision on the legal theories
of false imprisonment and the
intentional or negligent infliction of
emotional distress.

An essential element of the tort of
false imprisonment is the detention of
a person. The court found that this did
not occur in this case. There was no
evidence that the pharmacist or any
other employee detained Doe, restricted
her movement in the store, or
advised her that she could not leave.
Doe testified that at one point she had
grown so tired of waiting that she
nearly left the store. The police conducted
their own investigation and
did not rely on the pharmacist's suspicions,
so false imprisonment was not a
valid theory of recovery against either
the pharmacist or the pharmacy.

The court further found that the tort
of intentional infliction of emotional distress
did not apply because essential elements
were not present. To be successful
when raising such a claim, the plaintiff
must show that the defendant's conduct
was extreme and outrageous. To the contrary,
the behavior of the pharmacist was
not "outrageous,"nor was it extreme.
Without such behavior, his acts could
not be deemed intentional.

In light of the conversation with the
oral surgeon's partner and the other
facts available to him at the time, the
pharmacist was found to have acted
logically. Having found that the pharmacist's
actions were logical, it followed
that he was "reasonable."Without
an element of unreasonableness,
there could be no negligence either.
All the legal theories against the pharmacist
and the pharmacy failed. The
judgment was reversed.